[UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty

Watch the following Citizen Web Ad:

I'm 25 years old. That means that for my entire lifetime, the political ambitions of two dynastic families has controlled what my government does. And even though they are from opposing political parties, their base ideology is remarkably similar.

Both families supported NAFTA and lobbied for its passage and expansion. As we know, Labor and most Democrats strongly opposed NAFTA. Independent candidate Ross Perot attacked NAFTA as a job killer. And he was right. Over 1 Million well-paying manufacturing jobs disappeared, moving to nations with questionable political and human rights records. When given the opportunity at the recent Democratic debate to distance herself from NAFTA and its expansion, she called it "A vague memory."

The John Edwards campaign quickly released a web ad highlighting Clinton's position.

Both families also support pre-emptive war. In 2002, Bush asked for, and Hillary voted for the use of force against Iraq. Despite plenty of opportunities, she has not said her vote was wrong, unlike her colleagues, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, John Kerry, and the list goes on. In 2007, she voted with Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, two uber-hawks, to declare part of the Iranian military a "terrorist organization." Senator Jim Webb, not exactly a dove, said those who voted for the resolution, knowing how George Bush interprets resolutions, voted for a back-door entry into Iran.

Both families have been plagued by scandal. Bush the First had Iran Contra to deal with. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. Bush the Second has countless scandals associated with him. And now, Hillary Clinton is also plagued by scandals, mostly financial. She's raised (and returned) millions in tainted money. Perhaps worst of all, she has accepted donations from people pardoned by her husband. Is it any wonder she wants to keep her White House papers and schedules hidden from the public for as long as possible?

Democrats in the early states have an opportunity over the Thanksgiving Holiday. They have the chance to think hard, and realize that this isn't a corronation. Democrats have a choice. And they should vote for change.

Happy Holidays.

Display:


ouch (2.00 / 3)

wonder what democratic courage is going to come up with?


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:52:17 PM EST

Re: ouch (2.00 / 4)

I'm a big fan of the Godfather.  But Bush/Clinton has been around since before I was born.  It's time for something new.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:55:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ouch (none / 0)

<ping!>  In which case, I give you the Ron Paul presidency.

One really should be careful about what one wishes for.

I find the whole two-family thing to be a red herring stuffed inside a pinata.  

It's not a question of two families but who's running for the Democrats.   Period.   If you don't like Hillary, fine...vote against her in the primary.   Personally, I've taken the measure of Hillary and prefer her to both Obama and Edwards and as the campaign has gone on that preference has become more marked.   It doesn't matter to me whether Hillary is a Clinton or a Yournamehere.


by InigoMontoya on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dump the Two Familias: Vote Change (none / 0)

I'm not sure how persuasive it would be to anyone who isn't already persuaded.

Here's my question, though: If you're saying Clinton wouldn't be a big change from Bush, aren't you saying Bush really wasn't a big change from Clinton?  Is that really a message you think you can sell?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 02:58:39 PM EST

Re: Dump the Two Familias: Vote Change (2.00 / 1)

I'm saying I want an end to dynasty.  I don't care what their politics are, they're both corporate, they're both pro-war, and they're both corrupt.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:01:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dump the Two Familias: Vote Change (2.00 / 2)

And yes, I'll hold my nose and vote Clinton is she's the Dem nominee.  I'll just be really disappointed with myself.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:01:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

first of all (none / 0)

you need to look up the meaning of the word dynasty.

Then please examine her record. Continue this nonsense line of thinking and you should be voting Nader in no time.  You simply have no clue what you are talking about.
But you do make a fine case for raising the voting age to 30


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:31:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: first of all (none / 0)

you need to look up the meaning of the word dynasty.

here is another word to look up:

OLIGARCHY


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think its better phrased as (2.00 / 2)

Clinton won't be a big enough change from Bush


by okamichan13 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:20:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think its better phrased as (2.00 / 2)

Right!  Even Joe Lieberman would be a big change from Bush, but that's obviously not saying much.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is there a dimes worth of difference? (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:33:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is there a dimes worth of difference? (none / 0)

the two headed monster, a duopoly, two different sides of the same coin, she owns stock in Occidental petroleum... er, never mind


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:34:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously, Nader and his supporters said (none / 0)

That there was not a dimes worth of difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.  They were both corporatists we were told.

Look what it got us.

I know you don't think that Gore is the same as Bush, but how soon people forget.  I am starting to hear the same crap now 7 years later, "there is no difference between CLinton and Bush."

People who say that need to see a specialist.  


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:40:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seriously, Nader and his supporters said (2.00 / 1)

Just curious but who said there wasn't a difference?  I skimmed the posts here again and didn't see anyone say that.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come now (none / 0)

That arguement, which you have heard, "there is no difference" goes hand in hand with your "dynasty" stuff.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The people saying that (2.00 / 1)

were Nader supporters. I don't see any around here. I do see some people thinking that Clinton isn't the best democratic choice.

Sorry to burn the strawman down.


by okamichan13 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, quite a bit n/t (none / 0)


by okamichan13 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ABC (2.00 / 1)

i'd say this is far superior to the 'volvo driving, latte-drinking, NYT reading, east coast liberal' ad bash that we saw 4 years ago. (that was was made by the dem machine--this ad targets the dem machine. about time.)

thanks for sharing!

ABC : is my motto.


by aiko on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:18:42 PM EST

Re: ABC (none / 0)

anybody but clinton


by aiko on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:22:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC (none / 0)

So you will take Romney, Giuliani, how about Tancredo?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:38:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC (2.00 / 1)

Absurd comment.  Commenter meant other Dem candidates, not just anyone.   There was the ABB in 2004 movement, and it generally meant the Dems as well.


by benny06 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah funny as shit (none / 0)

rather than anyone but the republican, now we have anyone but the front runner democrat...thanks to Naderites and freeepers who started all this Clinton hate on these blogs.


ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ABC (none / 0)

Then that person must say what they meant, not just say anything they want.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:47:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (2.00 / 1)

Nothing is inherently wrong with dynasties.

There're just alot inherently wrong with Hillary.


"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama
by General Sherman on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 03:19:43 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (2.00 / 2)

Great Diary Vox. I agree with your assessments. It is time that another family got a chance at the White House.

What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result!!


by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:15:14 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

Wow.  You really would have hated FDR.


by CaseyL on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:27:17 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (2.00 / 1)

Well lets see. FDR was in the WH for just under 16 yrs, and actually helped the nation. If Hillary wins eight years that will be 28 yrs of little or no Progressive change. Why again do I hate FDR?


by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:08:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More Dynasty nonsense (2.00 / 1)

I will AGAIN offer my points on this nonsense.

1) The Bush and the Clinton are different families, from different parties with different politics.  Saying Bush / Clinton makes it seems like they are connected, which for them to be a dynasty they would have to be.  They are not.  Its a bogus charge.  

The only people who would claim they are the same are the filthy Narerites who also claimed that there was no difference (not a dimes worth) between Gore and Bush.  I think even the not so bright among us here can see that the stinking Naderites were out to lunch, as usual, on that call.

2) Nobody cried foul when Shrub ran.  Not you, not anyone else.  Nobody said no, or that it was too soon after his dad, etc.  This is just a weak arguement made by those that oppose Clinton.

3) This is the most important one.  WE DON'T HAVE DYNASTIES IN THIS COUNTRY!  We have a democracy.  Clinton as a RIGHT to run.  People have a RIGHT to vote for her or for someone else.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:32:15 PM EST

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (2.00 / 1)

And thankfully, I have a right to produce a video and have a right to be confronted by you about my use of rhetoric.  Is Bush/Clinton a "dynasty" according to the dictionary? No.  Is using that as a rhetorical device helpful for my point? Yes.

"Filthy Naderites"?  Wow.  Of course there's a dime's worth of difference between the two.  But just a dime's worth.  And yes, people WERE saying it's time for someone new, time to end the nepotism, etc, when Bush the Second ran.  They said the same thing when Ted Kennedy ran in 1980.  They said the same thing when John Quincy Adams ran too.  I'm afraid that charge wasn't created just for Hillary Clinton.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (none / 0)

How in the world was Teddy going to be a dynasty? JFK didn't serve a full term and that was 17 yrs. before Teddy. Poor Robert got killed for his vision before he even had a chance to serve, and that was 12 yrs. before Teddy. That just makes no sense whatsoever.

Besides, I would much rather have had 24 yrs of Kennedys than 28 yrs. of Clinton and Bush!!


by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:13:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That dime will be enough to buy .... (none / 0)

The next Supreme Court Justice!


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:42:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That dime will be enough to buy .... (none / 0)

We're more likely to get a Stephen Bryer than a Thurgood Marshall.  Sad.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe you'd prefer another Sam Alito? (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:50:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Maybe you'd prefer another Sam Alito? (2.00 / 1)

Unfortunately a lot of people on this board and in the nation, think that if HRC is the nominee we will get another Sam Alito.  

A lot of people, myuself included, believe that HRC's "unfavorable ratings" are so high that she simply stands no chance of winning the general election.  Thus electing another Republican and another Sam Alito like Justice.  Right or wrong, the corporate media hates her and will run a never ending anti Hill and Bill parade of smears and attacks.  it will be the f**king blue dress all over again.

I have a huge fear that the Republicans are armed to the teeth with anti Hillary ads, smears and re hashes elections past.  They've been planning on this for years and are well armed.

Let's force them to fight someone they never expected or armed for.

Edwards, Obama, Biden, Richardson, Dodd.....


Hillary Clinton is not a monster,....as far as I know.. We are all Hussein JUNIOR.. ///.. FEINGOLD/BOXER 2016
by Its Like Herding Cats on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:02:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (2.00 / 2)

Oh yes I did!! I hated that that fool ran and got elected. Yes, I did cry foul, and warned of many of the things that have since traspired. You can say what you want but if we have the same two families running this country for 28 yrs., I find that unsettling.


by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:11:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (2.00 / 1)

2) Nobody cried foul when Shrub ran.  Not you, not anyone else.  Nobody said no, or that it was too soon after his dad, etc.  This is just a weak arguement made by those that oppose Clinton.

I sure did, and so did many other people. I think I was 13 at the time. The only reason that George W. got into the white house is because of pure nepotism. That's deeply corrosive to our democracy.

I don't have such a big problem with a Hillary Clinton presidency, actually. Still the fact is that she is only in a position to be president because her husband was president before her. And yes there is something disquieting, and anti-progressive, about that.

Clinton as a RIGHT to run.  People have a RIGHT to vote for her or for someone else.

That's certainly true. Nobody's suggesting there should be a law barring wives from running for their husband's previous office. As you said, people have a right to vote against Clinton, and the dynasty argument is a valid reason why not to.  


by Korha on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 09:20:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Are you kidding me? (none / 0)

His dad who couldn't win two terms got him in?  

If the old man had that kind of clout why didn't he secure a second term for himself?


by dpANDREWS on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 01:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Are YOU kidding me? (2.00 / 2)

His dad who couldn't win two terms got him in?

Uh, yes? Unless you think a mediocre man like George W. Bush could have become Governor of Texas, much less the POTUS, without his daddy's name and his daddy's connections? How could you believe otherwise? Dubya is the very opposite of a self-made man. Compare him with Bill Clinton, who come from nothing and by his own sheer talent and effort succeeded in becoming the most powerful man in the world. If George W. Bush had born a poor boy in Arkansas nobody would have ever heard of him.
 


by Korha on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (none / 0)

anybody with a sense of decency would never have buddied up to bush senior like bill clinton did.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More Dynasty nonsense (none / 0)

you call critics of hillary naderites, but it's people like rupert murdoch who hold fundraisers for her. that doesn't raise a red flag for you? you don't even wonder why?


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 05:49:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

Your smear diary failed so miserably you had to come into this one and go completely off topic??
LOL!!!! You've earned it!!
by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:17:25 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

That is even more comical!!


by RDemocrat on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He was banned from Dkos (none / 0)

apparently never learned how to promote his own candidate without smearing others.


by okamichan13 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:31:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dynasty arguement (2.00 / 1)

seems like the ultimate in desperation for Obama and Edwards supporters. Hillary is playing within the system. She has worked hard to be where she's at at the front of the Democratic field. "No Dynasty" just seems like you're saying "No fair Hillary, you're the wife of the former President". It's a bunch of whining as far as I'm concerned.


by Christopher Lib on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 05:48:00 PM EST

Re: Dynasty arguement (none / 0)

She has worked hard to be where she's at

rightwing nepotism, bad.

leftwing nepotism, good.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:31:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

Great video--put it on all the airwaves for next two weeks every hour.We are a better nation than having to put up with more crap.As for me am not going to hold my nose and vote. We can do write in if it is Clinton. She is tiresome and wears badly--not to mention she is the choice of the people in charge of this country--and we know how committed they are to our interests.


by katiekat489 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:11:46 PM EST

My Grandmother is 90 Years Old (none / 0)

Her whole life a man has been in the White House.

No.

No.

NO!!!!

It wasn't an authorization vote.

Look it up!!


by Edgar08 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:28:06 PM EST

Re: My Grandmother is 90 Years Old (2.00 / 1)

History disagrees with you.  Why does this have to be about her gender?  I don't care what gender my president is.  I care that they have good judgement and humility in the event of bad judgement.  She doesn't.  She laughs off serious questions.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Grandmother is 90 Years Old (none / 0)

Actually, the AUMF disagrees with you, but then you were never actually interested in facts that didn't suit your predetermined purpose.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 07:48:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

Everyone knew what that vote was about. Bush had made it abundantly clear he was bound and determined to invade Iraq. Just because they included some ass-covering language doesn't change the truth of the situation.


by Mystylplx on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:47:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

Bush made it abundantly clear after Blix was gearing to begin inspections, after Congress had passed authorization, precisely because of Congress' successful leverage placed on the UN Security Council which had blocked further sanctions. It's funny to me how easily people forget the 5 months absent any war between the authorization and the invasion when the press had declared Bush "the great internationalist" who was determined to work with the world community, etc. etc. You can't just steamroll over all of the facts to come to a conclusion that ignores the intention and the context of everyone's vote.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 02:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

you support her iran vote too?


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 08:43:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

Her vote condemns Iranian force operations as commanders on the ground have continually asserted finding evidence of, as they watch their troops get blown up by roadside bombs from Iran. There's absolutely no authorization for any war at all in Iran. Congress has a role in overseeing American foreign policy, but none in conducting it: the resolution was purely a symbolic sense gesture of the Congress. She has called for 'robust diplomacy' which involves engaging Iran both positively in talks, encouraging an amicable end to the nuclear plans dispute and taking a stand economically where there is evidence that they are undermining our efforts in Iraq.

Honestly, I can understand why she voted for it but I wish the Resolution hadn't made it to the floor in the first place-- it doesn't feel like it's the right time (unless they know something that I don't)...


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 03:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

Her vote condemns Iranian force operations as commanders on the ground have continually asserted finding evidence of, as they watch their troops get blown up by roadside bombs from Iran.

when asked for proof for evidence of iran complicity, the same general were unable to do so.

it's the saudis have helped to fund and arm insurgents in iraq. why is the entire establishment structure of both parties (as well as the media) not holding the saudis to task for this and condemning them for it?

we know why. they're holding us over the barrel (of oil). we need to break the chains of being held hostage to opec.

hillary lending credence to bush effort to present iran as boggie man, only adds fuel to the drive to conflict.

her iran vote not only revealed her aipac sympathies, this saber rattling vote benefitted opec and domestic oil in giving them an excuse to raise their prices, citing faux supply concerns.

while the clintons were in the whitehouse, there was not one iota of fuel mileage improvement (cafe standards) achieved. is this why saudi royals tripped over one another helping to fund bill clinton's monument to ego- his library?

now hillary is trying to present herself as committed to the environment when the record of doing is sorely lacking.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:17:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

There have been numerous accounts from the army. If it's your belief that they are lying, that's your deal.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:56:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

no comment about proven saudi complicity, i see.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

It'd help if you posted links so that I can see if I care or that they are credible...


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (none / 0)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/ 2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm

CAIRO (AP) -- Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.
Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

Some Saudis appear to know the money is headed to Iraq's insurgents, but others merely give it to clerics who channel it to anti-coalition forces, the officials said.

In one recent case, an Iraqi official said $25 million in Saudi money went to a top Iraqi Sunni cleric and was used to buy weapons, including Strela, a Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missile. The missiles were purchased from someone in Romania, apparently through the black market, he said.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:03:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (none / 0)

There's a shocker: private Saudi citizens giving money to extremists. I'm sure our government is investigating those individuals. But that's not at all analogous to the Quds Force's involvement in American military deaths in Iraq.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:20:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Reality disagrees with you. (2.00 / 1)

No. Bush made it abundantly clear before congress had passed him authorization, before Powell went to the U.N. before all of that.

And when did the press declare Bush "the great internationalist?" You can't just make stuff up like that and expect to be taken seriously. Some in the press may have been so stupid as to have said something like that, but that's not the way the bulk of the press coverage went.


by Mystylplx on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:17:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If I'm not to be believed, then you go and look. (none / 0)

No. Bush made it abundantly clear before congress had passed him authorization, before Powell went to the U.N. before all of that.

The only one making things up is you. Frankly, I suggest you do a Lexis-Nexis search and reacquaint yourself with what happened and the stories that appeared in the press. Bush was called a "Wilsonian" multilateralist who had assured Congress repeatedly before and after authorization that AUMF was to leverage the UN Security Council to mandate inspections, as it did. Here is a list of some citations found within a 30 minute perusal since I'm just making things up--

December 7, 2002 Saturday
"Bush says war with Iraq last option"
BYLINE: By KATHY A. GAMBRELL
LENGTH: 490 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 (UPI)

The Press (Christchurch)
December 4, 2002, Wednesday
"Bush keeps up pressure on Saddam Bush keeps pressure on after cameras lost"
SECTION: NEWS; INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 1; CITY EXTRA EDITION; CE
LENGTH: 710 words

St. John's Telegram (Newfoundland)
December 19, 2002 Thursday Final Edition
"Bush not yet ready to trigger war: UN weapons inspections"
SOURCE: The Associated Press
SECTION: News; Pg. B6
LENGTH: 777 words
DATELINE: WASHINGTON

USA TODAY
December 4, 2002, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION
"Arms accounting key step in path to war or peace"
BYLINE: Bill Nichols
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 8A
LENGTH: 1214 words

San Gabriel Valley Tribune (San Gabriel Valley, CA)
December 18, 2002 Wednesday
"Bush decides no immediate war with Iraq"
BYLINE: By Ron Fournier AP White House Correspondent
SECTION: PM UPDATES
LENGTH: 909 words

The Boston Globe
September 12, 2002, Thursday ,THIRD EDITION
"ANNAN TO URGE CAUTION TO US PLANS TO ASK UN STATES FOR MULTILATERAL SOLUTIONS"
BYLINE: By Elizabeth Neuffer, Globe Staff
SECTION: NATIONAL/FOREIGN; Pg. A3
LENGTH: 477 words

Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)
November 20, 2002, Wednesday
"Muzzling unilateral instinct with multilateral charm"
BYLINE: By John Hughes
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. 11
LENGTH: 771 words
DATELINE: SALT LAKE CITY

Toronto Star
September 15, 2002 Sunday Ontario Edition
"U.S. and U.N. form odd alliance"
BYLINE: Richard Gwyn, Toronto Star
SECTION: OPINION; Pg. A13
LENGTH: 820 words


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I was there. (none / 0)

Bush said lots of things, and the press reported on it of course. But it took pressure from his own party to even get him to pretend to take a diplomatic approach.

And everyone who had a brain saw that. And whatever else you can say about Hillary Clinton she certainly has a brain.


by Mystylplx on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 12:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was there. (none / 0)

He publicly made concessions to Democrats on the Hill to take a diplomatic approach toward the so-called Iraq crisis before any authorization was passed. You can swear up and down that everybody knew they were going to go to war despite Bush's continual statements to the contrary, but the question at the time in Oct-2002 was still how to get inspectors on the ground in Iraq. The AUMF's near term goal was to do that, and it did: the UN Security Council was going forward with the wishes of the Congress in the 5 months between authorization and invasion. It wasn't until early 2003 that things started to change as the Bush Administration publicly indicated that it had no intention of seeing the diplomatic course through.

This is not a question of intelligence and I find it rather silly that you would just treat this discussion as though because Bush invaded, it was obvious from the beginning that that's what he publicly made certain from the start. It doesn't hold any water. Sorry.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 05:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was there. (2.00 / 2)

Even Ted Kennedy knew it, and he's not exactly the brightest lamp in the stadium. I knew it. Hillary knew it too. Seriously, didn't you know it at that time? Did you really not understand what that vote meant at that time?

Any promises he made were like a heroin addict saying, "yeah, yeah, I'll watch your stash. I promise! No. No. I won't touch it I swear."

And if she didn't realize that then she's way to naive and irresponsible to be President.


by Mystylplx on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 05:35:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BS (none / 0)

I'm not going to play this game with you. People had reason to take him seriously about Iraq; and people had reason to believe in the integrity of the office; and people had reason to believe in the way government was supposed to work. No other president in history had had such a reason to manufacture a cause for going to war. His words were clear; and yes, we know now that he had every intention to go to war from insider accounts. However, there was every indication coming from the White House that it needn't come to that, even as you profess ignorance. Your BS is very unbecoming.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 06:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

People had reason to take him seriously about Iraq; and people had reason to believe in the integrity of the office

hillary could not even be bothered to read NIE report before voting for the war. that's how much she cared about the issue.

the one most touting "experience" couldn't be bothered to do the homework.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 11:10:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

Oh please, she spoke personally with Powell, Hadley and also former Clinton officials and was briefed personally. That's a lot more than can be said of some other people.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:52:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

i was fully briefed by my staffers! - was hillary's excuse.
there was no excuse for not reading the report.

powell - who held a vial of pretend anthrax at the UN and caused the tipping point that helped to launch country to war. this is whom you trust?

hadley - condi rice's deputy? oh no, he wouldn't lie, would he? he's the one who got set up up as the sacrificial lamb for sticking the nigerian yellowcake nonsense into bush speech.

accepting a reliance on bush people as an excuse makes you as gullible as hillary.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

Yes, Powell. The secretary of state. And yes, Hadley, the deputy National Security Advisor. First you complain about the NIE and now you complain about her seeking out various sources in person for high level briefings. Poor you, you are so blinded by your hatred that you can't even see straight.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 04:48:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

now you complain about her seeking out various sources in person for high level briefings.

hillary didn't seek out hans blix, did she? or david albright, from ISIS, who debunked the bush administration's claim that the aluminum tubes iraq had were meant for centrifuges. no, she only sought out enablers for the war.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:36:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

She sought out the people she knew who had direct experience both coinciding and rebutting the Administration's position. Her decision was very clear: leverage the UN to put inspectors on the ground. It worked. Bush didn't let them finish. Therein lay the problem. As you probably know, Joe Wilson has endorsed Hillary Clinton.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:11:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (none / 0)

yeah, so?

zbigniew brzezinski endorsed obama. as do the majority of democratic foreign policy experts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazi ne/04obama-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 04:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why Does this Have to be About (none / 0)

Her name.


by Edgar08 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 11:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why Does this Have to be About (none / 0)

how old are you?

this has to do with a whole hell of a lot more than her name.


by aiko on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My Grandmother is 90 Years Old (none / 0)

how does grandma feel about bombing iran?


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

I'm watching a rerun of Bill Clinton on David Letterman right now, explaining what's going on in Iraq, talking about the reasons why we need to end this war for our own sake and for the Iraqis' sake.  God, for all his faults, I'd give that man twelve terms in office if I could.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 12:33:02 AM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (2.00 / 1)

recycling arguments? Back to dynasty issues?

weak

but you have videos, i'll give you a C+ lol


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 09:44:03 AM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (2.00 / 1)

that godfather theme song is hillaryous.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:48:57 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

When given the opportunity at the recent Democratic debate to distance herself from NAFTA and its expansion, she called it "A vague memory."

she did not have sex with that trade policy, mr. nafta.

it was clinton who opened the door to our being poisoned by china. they couldn't even leveraged trade with china with something positive, such as make it as a condition of requirement that china relinquished their control of tibet. or anything else similar that would of marked a stand for progressive ideals. clintons sold out cheap.

while they opened the flood doors to china, they blocked drug reimportation from canada, citing bogus safety concerns (to big pharma's delight). so what did we end up with as a result? higher prescription drug costs and dead cats and dogs. progressive dems need to wake up out of their nostalgic reverie that will drag us off onto the wrong track (again!), get off the kool aid, and face the true picture of the clinton record, instead of burying their heads in the sand like ostriches like so many do.


I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong
by jello on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:10:22 PM EST

Re: [UPDATE] End the Bush/Clinton Dynasty (none / 0)

I think it would not be good for the United States to continually have a president drawn from two families.

Are there really only two families that can provide us our president?

Isn't that sort of the way things happen in banana republics with sham democracy?

I think Hillary would be an incredibly better president than Bush but having said that it can't be denied that it sets a very poor precedent to have two families alternating power over potentially 36 years! I mean really!

Likewise it can't be denied that its high time the United States have a female president.

Personally I think the US is stuck in a rut. We have lost our mojo and we need a fresh start. Hillary does not provide that fresh start as her administration- judging by her current advisors/hangers-on- would look a somewhat like Bill Clinton's administration.

Mature democracies do not continually recycle leadership but rather develop new leaders.

I am in Texas write now spending the week with some very good americans. Solid. Military family. Hard working. Honest. The guy is disgusted with Bush whom he -like many- gave the benefit of the doubt to until a few years ago. He can't stand Hillary.

Just saying we ought to try to bring this guy in rather than say "You're either with us or against us and we're offering you the exact same thing you didn't like before."


Slash and burn politics baby! Say anything do anything lie cheat steal railroad the opposition into submission: CLINTON FORMULA FOR 2008.
by crackityjones on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 11:42:41 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.